zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
Inclusivity of editors is a major factor for inclusivity of content.

Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

With less than 10% of editors being women, for example, content is guaranteed to be somewhat skewed, even assuming absolutely no ill will by anybody.

Among the famous examples are a scientist's entry being deleted as "not notable" just weeks before she won the Nobel Prize. Or, if you prefer quantitative data, that articles about women tend to emphasise their relationships and children (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v2.pdf).

>>IAmEve+C4
> Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia though, not a bag of personal anecdotes and life experiences.

>>luckyl+L6
Look at you go, immediately discarding everything that other persons could contribute on the sole basis that it would be content from people different from yourself, true meritocracy in action!

>>Siempr+h7
You're misunderstanding what I wrote. Wikipedia very clearly states that they don't want original research even, much less original experiences and feelings. If you stay with the Wikipedia guidelines, a "diverse team of editors" could shift the areas of focus a bit (both within articles and on what articles get worked on), but the content should largely remain the same.

They want to provide well-sourced information, present the major thoughts where no consensus is visible and do it in a way that every reader can go to the sources and check it. If you want more representation of $group on Wikipedia, you'll do much better by publishing more work of $group's members so that it can be cited and quoted on Wikipedia. Just having them on Wikipedia doesn't/shouldn't work, it's not a news paper where somebody may set the topics/angles to be covered.

>>luckyl+t8
So the reason "programming pattern" has more effort put into it relative "knitting pattern" is the lack of written sources about knitting?

>>Siempr+7f
I don't know "the reason", but I find "knitting pattern" to be pretty hard to write a lot about in an encyclopedic context while limiting it to exactly that term. The article as is gives a general outline of what a knitting pattern is. I'm afraid that might trigger you, but I do believe that explaining what a programming pattern is is actually much harder than explaining what a knitting pattern is, as it's much more abstract.

And, of course, remember that the article isn't about "knitting", it's about "knitting patterns", so you'd need sources that concern themselves with knitting patterns _as a subject_ and not with individual knitting patterns.

There are very detailed articles about knitting, there's an article about common knitting abbreviations (which I don't believe fits into an encyclopedia, but whatever), there's plenty of other stuff about knitting.

What did you want to see on an article about knitting patterns? And, as a follow-up, why haven't you added that to the article about knitting patterns?